In the case of Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 132 v Newton, dated May 3, 2023, the applicant, Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 132 ("CCC 132"), brought a dispute against the respondent, John Charles Newton, a unit owner in the condominium, regarding unauthorized modifications he had made to his unit's exterior. CCC 132 had sought permission to replace the modified garage and front doors, which were considered exclusive use common element areas. The modification had breached the by-laws, as Newton had replaced the doors without obtaining prior approval from the Condominium Board. Newton had claimed that he received verbal approval for the modifications from a person named Elva, whom he believed acted on behalf of the Board. However, investigations revealed that Elva had had no involvement, and another Board member corroborated this. CCC 132 had argued that the modifications had breached common elements modification by-laws, which had required written and Board-approved alterations. Newton had also cross-claimed for oppression, alleging the Board's inconsistency in approving his request. The court had dismissed this claim, citing the absence of initial Board approval and finding no unjust treatment. The court had allowed CCC 132's application, granting permission for door replacement. Newton had been required to cooperate, and CCC 132 might have sought costs. The court had emphasized that maintaining uniformity in the condominium's appearance had been within the Board's purview. The case had highlighted the need for written approvals and adherence to by-laws for property modifications in condominiums. No specific information regarding a financial award had been provided in the case.